Hi,
it occurred to me that it might not be clear to everyone why I
objected to NE2's comment on talk. The discussion started with the
license change map http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/, and
someone said that the bits that are red on the license change map will
be deleted. That person was asked to use would, not will. NE2 then
replied:
If we go by what the JOSM introduction page says (OpenStreetMap is changing
its license), will is correct.
This is of course wrong, because even if the license change is a given,
will would only be correct if between now and then not a single person
would agree to the CT/ODbL which is certainly not the case. Seeing that
we were yet again descending into some kind of license change FUD on
talk, I wrote
Please stop this immediately.
promting Florian Lohoff to say
The above shows me there is no place for dissent in this project.
which, again, is not the correct conclusion; it's just that the license
change topic is quite serious and people discussing it should apply
minimum intellectual prudence instead of throwing around soundbites that
might upset others (a.k.a. FUD).
There's a place for dissent, but there's not place for bullshit. The
notion that everything currently painted red on that map is going to be
deleted certainly deserves the latter label.
I assume it was NE2's aim to question the JOSM startup notice which
basically portrays the license change as a done deal, but so does the
Wiki banner we're showing and personally I believe the only way to pull
this through is indeed to make it very clear that we're committed to
making the license change, rather than dithering around (a point on
which, astonishingly, 80n seems to be on our side).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
